dnc_get_settings

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Given no annotations, the description discloses the exact settings returned and their meanings (protection_enabled and auto_add_inbound_optouts), adding behavioral context beyond a simple getter. It doesn't mention error cases or permissions but that's acceptable for a simple read.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences serve distinct purposes: one states the operation, one explains return values. No filler or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has no parameters and a simple return structure; the description covers the purpose and the meaning of the return fields adequately. Sibling tools exist but the description is sufficient for agent selection.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There are no parameters, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter explanations where none exist.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'organisation's DNC protection settings', clearly distinguishing it from DNC mutation tools like dnc_update_settings and dnc_check which operate on individual entries.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It implies retrieval of settings but doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like dnc_check for individual lookups or dnc_update_settings for modifications. The context is clear, but no when-not guidance is provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.